Southwark CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey The CCG 360o stakeholder survey is a key part of ensuring

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Southwark CCG CCG 360o stakeholder survey The CCG 360o stakeholder survey is a key part of ensuring

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Version 1| Internal Use Only

    Southwark CCG

    CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2015

    Main report

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Table of contents

    Slide 3 Background and objectives

    Slide 4 Methodology and technical details

    Slide 6 Interpreting the results

    Slide 7 Using the results

    Slide 9 Summary

    Slide 16 Overall engagement and relationships

    Slide 27 Domain 1

    Slide 37 Domain 2

    Slide 55 Domain 3

    Slide 81 Domain 4

    Slide 93 Domain 5

    Slide 111 Domain 6

    Slide 130 Local CCG questions

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Background and objectives

    Southwark CCG

    Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) need to have strong relationships with a range of health and

    care partners in order to be successful commissioners within the local system. These relationships

    provide CCGs with on-going information, advice and knowledge to help them make the best possible

    commissioning decisions.

    The CCG 360o stakeholder survey is a key part of ensuring these strong relationships are in place.

    The survey allows stakeholders to provide feedback on working relationships with CCGs. The results

    from the survey will serve two purposes:

    1. To provide a wealth of data for CCGs to help with their ongoing organisational development,

    enabling them to continue to build strong and productive relationships with stakeholders. The

    findings can provide a valuable tool for all CCGs to be able to evaluate their progress and inform

    their organisational decisions.

    2. To feed into assurance conversations between NHS England sub-regions and CCGs. The survey

    will form part of the evidence used to assess whether the stakeholder relationships, forged

    during the transition through authorisation, continue to be central to the effective commissioning

    of services by CCGs, and in doing so, improve quality and outcomes for patients.

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Methodology and technical details

    Southwark CCG

    • It was the responsibility of each CCG to provide the list of

    stakeholders to invite to take part in the CCG 360o stakeholder


    • CCGs were provided with a core list of stakeholder organisations

    (outlined in the table opposite) to be included in their stakeholder

    list. Beyond this however, CCGs had the flexibility to determine

    which individual within each organisation was the most appropriate

    to nominate.

    • They were also given the opportunity to add up to ten additional

    stakeholders they wanted to include locally (they are referred to in

    this report as ‘Wider stakeholders’). These included:

    Commissioning Support Units, Health Education England, lower

    tier local authorities, MPs, private providers, Public Health England,

    social care / community organisations, Voluntary Sector

    Council/Leader, voluntary / third sector organisations, local care

    homes, GP out-of-hours providers and other stakeholders and


    • The survey was conducted primarily online via email invitations.

    Stakeholders who did not respond to the email invitation, and

    stakeholders for whom an email address was not provided, were

    telephoned by an Ipsos MORI interviewer who encouraged

    response and offered the opportunity to complete the survey by


    Core stakeholder framework

    GP member practices One from every

    member practice

    Health and wellbeing

    boards Up to two per HWB

    Local HealthWatch One per local


    Other patient groups Up to three

    NHS providers – Acute Up to two from each


    NHS providers – Mental

    health trusts

    Up to two from each


    NHS providers –

    Community health trusts

    Up to two from each


    Other CCGs Up to five

    Upper tier or unitary local

    authorities Up to five per LA

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Methodology and technical details

    • Within the survey,

    stakeholders were asked a

    series of questions about

    their working relationship with

    the CCG. In addition, to

    reflect each core stakeholder

    group’s different area of

    expertise and knowledge,

    they were presented with a

    short section of questions

    specific to the stakeholder

    group they represent.

    • Fieldwork was conducted

    between 10th March 2015

    and 7th April 2015.

    • 65 of the CCG’s stakeholders

    completed the survey. The

    overall response rate was

    86% which varied across the

    stakeholder groups shown in

    the table opposite.

    Survey response rates for Southwark CCG

    Stakeholder group

    Invited to take

    part in survey


    survey Response rate

    GP member practices 44 35 80%

    Health and wellbeing boards 2 1 50%

    Local HealthWatch/patient

    groups 4 3 75%

    NHS providers 6 6 100%

    Other CCGs 5 5 100%

    Upper tier or unitary local

    authorities 5 5 100%

    Wider stakeholders 10 10 100%

    Southwark CCG

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Interpreting the results

    • For each question, the responses to each answer are presented both as a percentage (%) and

    the number of stakeholders giving a certain answer, which are included in brackets (n).

    • The number of stakeholders answering (the base size) is stated for each question. The total

    number of responses is shown at the bottom of each chart and in every table.

    • For questions with fewer than 30 stakeholders answering, we strongly recommend that you look

    at the number of stakeholders giving each response rather than the percentage, as the

    percentage can be misleading when based on so few stakeholders.

    • This report presents the results from Southwark CCG's stakeholder survey. Throughout the

    report, ‘the CCG / your CCG’ refers to Southwark CCG.

    • Where a result for the ‘cluster’ is presented, this refers to the overall score across the 20 CCGs

    that are most similar to the CCG. For more information on the cluster and how this has been

    defined, please see Appendix A.

    • Where results do not sum to 100%, or where individual responses (e.g. tend to agree; strongly

    agree) do not sum to combined responses (e.g. strongly/tend to agree) this is due to rounding.

    Southwark CCG

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Using the results – the reports

    Southwark CCG

    • This report contains a summary section, a section on overall views of relationships and a

    section for each of the six assurance domains which show detailed breakdowns of responses

    to each question.

    • The overall summary slides show the results at CCG level for the questions asked of all

    stakeholders (i.e. only those in section 1 of the questionnaire).

    • This provides CCGs with an ‘at a glance’ visual summary of the results for the key

    questions, including direction of travel comparisons where appropriate.

    • The remainder of the report shows the results for all questions in the survey including any local

    questions where CCGs included them. The results for each question are provided at CCG level

    with a breakdown also shown for each of the core stakeholder groups where relevant.

    • This allows CCGs to interrogate the data in more detail.

    • The main report has been structured by the six assurance domains. There is also an additional

    initial section on overall engagement and relationships which contains the general questions that

    are not linked to specific domains.

    • At the end of each section of the main report, there is a table summarising the results, along with

    some comparative data for those questions asked of all stakeholders.

  • 14-070610-01 Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI


    Using the results – comparisons

    Southwark CCG

    • For some questions, data has been included in the reports to compare the results for the CCG


    • The CCG’s result in 2014

    • The 2015 average across all CCGs in the CCG’s cluster

    • National CCG average in 2015

    • The comparisons are included to provide a rough headline guide only and should be

    treated with caution due to the low numbers of respondents and differences in

    stakeholder lists.

    • Any differences are not necessarily statistically significant differences; a higher score than the

    cluster average does not always equate to ‘better’ performance, and a higher scor